The Chicago Teachers Union is asking for raises amounting to 30 percent over the next two years, the opening salvo in heated contract negotiations with school officials who are implementing a longer school day across Chicago Public Schools next school year.

"The Norwegians hate the Swedish and the Swedes they hate the FinnsThe Finns they hate the Russians and the Russians hate the YidsSpicks and Wops and Greasers; Kikes and Spades and Ginny HensHatred's blowin in the wind; 10 million outcasts"

"The Norwegians hate the Swedish and the Swedes they hate the FinnsThe Finns they hate the Russians and the Russians hate the YidsSpicks and Wops and Greasers; Kikes and Spades and Ginny HensHatred's blowin in the wind; 10 million outcasts"

Krazen's obsession notwithstanding, you guys really think teachers should get a 30% raise? Maybe they can at least tie it to performance?

In this case, no, I don't think they should get the raise, but I don't buy the "pay by performance" argument that much, partially because of what Xahar said, what it's difficult to agree on what "performance" is anyway, but also because it's not always fair to single out the teacher because of the nature of the work.

But aren't all jobs essentially "merit" based? If you are a bad factory worker, you get fired. If you suck at flipping burgers at Burger King, you get fired. The idea that you can't fire a teacher because her students aren't learning is absurd.

I suppose you could consider them such, but there's a difference between educational positions and flipping burgers. In the latter scenario, pretty much everything is provided to you. You have co-workers to rely on, the patties to cook, and a stove to cook them on, the tools to do it, and people to serve them to who are willing to eat.

In the former, the teacher may not have willing students to deal with. The teacher might be from an inner-city school with alot of cultural issues, or a poor school that needs repairs, or a school that lacks the necessary resources to compete with all the others. While the Burger King employee has everything there with him, it's almost entirely about his or her performance, while the teacher relies on everything that may not always be there. So there is more to blame for failing grades than just the teacher.

To make the burger flipper and the teacher on equal footing, you would have to throw a number of cogs in burger boy's machine. Unwilling customers, defective stoves, lack of burgers in stock, employees that are unreliable, etc.

Of course teachers are overpaid. I spend all day around them and can assure you they hardly deserve their salaries. I educate students who threaten to beat me up and have to deal with countless state and federal SPED mandates and I can assure you that I am overpaid.

Krazen's obsession notwithstanding, you guys really think teachers should get a 30% raise? Maybe they can at least tie it to performance?

In this case, no, I don't think they should get the raise, but I don't buy the "pay by performance" argument that much, partially because of what Xahar said, what it's difficult to agree on what "performance" is anyway, but also because it's not always fair to single out the teacher because of the nature of the work.

But aren't all jobs essentially "merit" based? If you are a bad factory worker, you get fired. If you suck at flipping burgers at Burger King, you get fired. The idea that you can't fire a teacher because her students aren't learning is absurd.

I suppose you could consider them such, but there's a difference between educational positions and flipping burgers. In the latter scenario, pretty much everything is provided to you. You have co-workers to rely on, the patties to cook, and a stove to cook them on, the tools to do it, and people to serve them to who are willing to eat.

In the former, the teacher may not have willing students to deal with. The teacher might be from an inner-city school with alot of cultural issues, or a poor school that needs repairs, or a school that lacks the necessary resources to compete with all the others. While the Burger King employee has everything there with him, it's almost entirely about his or her performance, while the teacher relies on everything that may not always be there. So there is more to blame for failing grades than just the teacher.

To make the burger flipper and the teacher on equal footing, you would have to throw a number of cogs in burger boy's machine. Unwilling customers, defective stoves, lack of burgers in stock, employees that are unreliable, etc.

Yeah, it's not that simple. Agreed. But I would look at maybe measuring teachers within schools? Obviously it is unfair to compare teachers in the suburbs with teachers in the inner cities. I just don't like how all the teachers get paid the same regardless of what they teach and how they do compared to other teachers teaching the same subject in their school. We all know there are good teachers and there are bad teachers. We know this from our experiences, don't we? Hell, a lot of the problem could be solved if some teachers could be fired from time to time, but it's not like the teacher's union will allow that. Or rewarding a young teacher who cares about teaching and is inspiring his students as compared to some old lazy ass who doesn't care much but still makes way more than that young teacher. That's another big no no from the teacher's union. When a self described communist (my AP US history teacher) has a problem with the teacher's union, you know there are some issues.

Also Science and Math teachers should be paid more. I know this will offend many people, but it must be so. Teachers who teach AP classes should be paid more as well. I know this is done in affluent school districts to a certain extent but is it done in poorer school districts?

Of course teachers are overpaid. I spend all day around them and can assure you they hardly deserve their salaries. I educate students who threaten to beat me up and have to deal with countless state and federal SPED mandates and I can assure you that I am overpaid.

I did some Googling and every number I found was lower than $75k, which your source says is from 2008. This 2011 article, for example, says the number is 69k. Perhaps the source you cited is adding other forms of compensation to the salary. Generous either way, though.

Also Science and Math teachers should be paid more. I know this will offend many people, but it must be so.

Why must it be so? Or is it so self-evident that it needs no explanation?

Because they can many times find a job that pays them more? How do you get someone with a masters or PhD in Chemistry to teach AP Chem when you will only pay them 40k? At the same time some old timer who teaches computer skills or some other crap gets paid 80k just because they have been around for much longer.